The optic disc is the point at which the optic nerve enters the retina. The optic disc is insensitive to light. It has no rods or cones and, therefore, cannot detect any images. The optic disc is also called the “blind spot.” By way of analogy, we use the blind spot to describe many things in life to which we’re simply insensitive and, ironically, over-sensitive to the point at which we’re not willing to see what is real.
Parents are particularly susceptible to blind spots regarding their children. For instance, some kids just aren’t gifted athletically or in the arts despite their parents’ insistence. Politics has its blind spots, usually in the form of obligatory optimism (wherein a true believer can’t face the reality of defeat) or extreme ego (wherein an unqualified or unprepared candidate for elected office convinces himself he is ideal).
Giving others the benefit of the doubt, the debate over same-sex marriage has its blind spots too – perhaps nowhere more pronounced than the inability of many same-sex marriage supporters to see the rational basis within the state interest over the definition of marriage.
The description of this blind spot does not include willful ignorance or callous disregard motivated by ideology or even an honest disagreement about what legal arguments trump another (e.g., equal protection or a state interest). This blind spot regards the inability of same-sex-marriage advocates to even see a state interest in Utah’s marriage law.
In candor, I admit my incredulity about this blind spot. It’s increasingly hard for me to give advocates of same-sex marriage the benefit of the doubt for this blind spot when they so easily and consistently argue for the socio-psychological benefits of marriage. “We just want what you have.” “We want to be happy like you.” Frankly, it’s hard to believe that these advocates can’t see the state interest in marriage when they clamor to get married on multi-grounded justifications rooted in the general welfare of men, women and children, and exemplified, at least partially, in amicus brief after amicus brief currently filed by friends of the plaintiffs at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The state interest in the definition of marriage is otherwise self-evident and has been so, whether or not formally recognized under law, since the time families created communities that needed governing: Society has a fundamental stake in demographic progress and the welfare of men, women and children. If people aren’t reproducing or, when they do, aren’t doing so in the optimal setting to maximize the general welfare of men, women and children, state measurements of progress (economic, social, health, psychological, physical, etc.) decline. The intact, two-parent (male/female) family produces the best results in both of these criteria. The state interest is the best interest requiring, ipso facto, the adoption of policies reflecting what’s best.
But, as I mentioned, giving others the benefit of the doubt compels us to advance the idea that same-sex marriage advocates who cannot see the state interest in the current definition of marriage must have a significant blind spot. These advocates seem to have 20/20 vision for their own self-interest but suffer an insurmountable blind spot regarding the general welfare and the common good – what we refer to as the state interest. Continue reading